Alex Findlay Meets with Hugh Wilson / AWT chats with CBM

[TEPaul]

HINT:


"Except for many hours over a drawing board, running instruments in the field and just plain talking, I made but one important contribution to the layout of the course."
Richard Francis, Merion member, Wilson Committee member (their professional engineer/surveyor).


Do you think instead of going on page after page arguing over fairly irrelevent issues like the degree of blindness of #10 or even what "others" meant in Findlay's largely unclear article, that perhaps you all should focus on this!? This man was not some occasional and indirect reporter as Findlay was. This guy was there on and with the committee throughout the entire thing in 1911. Dismiss or ignore this or rationalize it away somehow as Moriarty has done and you run the risk of just not understanding the details of what the Wilson Committee did and when.

"Except for MANY HOURS OVER A DRAWING BOARD, RUNNING INSTRUMENTS IN THE FIELD AND JUST PLAIN TALKING....."


Hmmm!

Sounds pretty indicative to me about what was happening with the Wilson Committee at Ardmore in the beginning of 1911. Where was Macdonald/Whigam during this time? 

This is some of the valuable first-hand material detail that Merion East's architectural history is from and it just can't be ignored or discounted or rationalized away anymore. What has Moriarty's response been to this and what will he say when he sees it on here again? Probably what he always says; "We've been over this before."

We have and because it doesn't fit into his tortured logic and conclusion, he just continues to claim that Francis must have been wrong somehow as he also claimed that Alan Wilson must have been wrong somehow in his report to the long-term secretary/treasurer of MCC who was attempting to write MCC's first history. He even claimed that a surveyor's map of the property by a professional surveyor that was given to MCC's membership was wrong when a part of it didn't conform to the tortured time-line logic he tried to foist on this entire subject.

That just doesn't work for us and it sure doesn't work for Merion. This material has got to be considered just as it was written----the facts from a man who was right there with them on the ground throughout.

He thinks we've been through all this? Not at all, and not well enough apparently.

If anyone really wants to know the true history of a golf club's architecture they just don't dismiss stuff like this as David Moriarty has done in his essay and continues to do on here.

[DMoriarty]

Mike Cirba,

Your hyperbolic indignation to the contrary, the article just doesn't say that the ground rises 8 feet to the green.   You and Wayne just pretend it does because you want it to.

It says that the ground slopes eight feet from the bunkers to the green, and that this is the same slope as in front and back.   One can see in the photos that the green is sunken and that the ground slopes down the green on at least three sides.    Is it eight vertical feet in front?   It does not look it in the photos, but then we cannot see the entire front bunker complex so who knows?   Between the rise up from the road (we can see 5 steps, and we cannot even see if their are more steps lower) and any mounding in the bunkers, it could be eight feet, or close to it.   But whether it is or not, I have no idea.  And don't really care.

I don't understand why you think this is so important.  It has been talked to death.  As I have said, I don't think it matters one bit.

_______________________

TEPaul,

Once again, you are out of control.   If you want to discuss this stuff with me, then you need grow up. A lot.  If you cannot have a conversation without temper tantrums, name calling, and extremely boorish behavior, you need to find a new hobby. 

Why Ran and Ben allow you to continue to embarrass yourself and all of us on their website is really beyond me.  This is how you behave as their guest??  Pathetic.
 

[Dan Herrmann]

David Morarty,
If you can swing it, I'd really suggest you try to visit during the Walker Cup this summer.  I may be naive, but I think a personal visit might have you thinking that there's really not much (if any) CBM out there.

http://www.2009walkercup.org/cms/

[TEPaul]

"David Moriarty, it will do you no good at all on these threads to continue to deflect the focus away from your tortured logic and distorted assumptions and conclusions on this entire issue of Merion, Wilson and Macdonald, by trying to constantly shift the focus onto me or blame me for the reaction to the things you have written and said about Merion. What you need to do is learn how to take responsibility yourself for the things you have said and written on here on that subject.

We are going to go back through all this, point by timeline point, but this time with some others on here who are now apparently willing to engage and both understand and appreciate not just what has happened here but also why.

I will be civil throughout and when all is said and done I feel this website will be treated to a very fine example of how not to broach, and research and write about an important architectural subject such as Merion and its architect and architectural history.

[JWL]

Interesting stuff.   

Mr Findlay wrote "there are a few nice water hazards, and a few nice sand ones, but the mental hazards will have to wait to the spring"...paraphrasing.

What do you think he was referring to as the "mental hazards".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Are those NGLA  blind shots up hill?

If you played there you would know the answer.

On # 11, the approach to the green, I've had uphill, blind shots over the public road more times than I can count.

Mike Cirba,

I've explained the topography, features and interrelationship between those features to you, thanks to the photographic evidence which you yourself supplied.

At this point you're asking us, "who are you going to believe, your eyes, or Mike Cirba's interpretation, which is at odds with the visible evidence ?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Has anyone considered, just for a second, that the huge earthen berm behind the 10th green JUST MIGHT have been created from excavating the putting surface for the 10th green ?

Wouldn't that make economic sense to those constructing that huge earthen works ?

Why import fill when you can excavate it from the land in front of the green ?

As to the disappearance of the fill when the mound was removed, wouldn't it make sense to return it to its original resting place ?

If the dirt used for the back berm was excavated from in front of the huge berm, that would place the putting surface below the natural grade, thus making the putting surface blind from the DZ.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It would make sense if the green was below the natural grade in that area but it's not hard to tell it wasn't. If you want to see the most obvious place they made the cut to create the fill for that berm behind that green just check out that massive "thing" (cut) on the left of the tenth fairway! It looks to me like the size of it just about balances the fill for that big berm.

[Dan Herrmann]

Interesting stuff.  

Mr Findlay wrote "there are a few nice water hazards, and a few nice sand ones, but the mental hazards will have to wait to the spring"...paraphrasing.

What do you think he was referring to as the "mental hazards".

On of the best is the famous quarry that comes into play on 16 - 18. 

The green surfaces are also full of subtleties that can drive you nuts. 

Of course, the tee shot on #1 is probably the toughest mental shot in golf, due to the built-in gallery watching your shot from the adjacent outdoor dining area.

[DMoriarty]

David Morarty,
If you can swing it, I'd really suggest you try to visit during the Walker Cup this summer.  I may be naive, but I think a personal visit might have you thinking that there's really not much (if any) CBM out there.

http://www.2009walkercup.org/cms/

Dan

Great suggestion.  I'd rather attend a Walker Cup than any other USGA event, and would love to see Merion again;  I need to if I am ever going to write Part II of my Essay.  Surely buying a ticket to such an event will be the only way I ever set foot on the place again.  [Both Wayne and Tom owe me a round there, but I won't hold my breath in either case.]   All that being said, I have many other obligations, and don't know if I'd be able to make that trip happen.  Plus, my family would be very disappointed if I ended up murdered and buried in a bunker like TomPaul and his self-proclaimed "posse" have threatened in the past; in jest probably yet as unstable as these guys are, who really knows? 

But keep in mind Dan that I have seen the course.  I've played it only once but if did make quite an impression, and I am much better at understanding and remembering great golf courses than I am at playing them. (If Wayne Morrison is to believed (and he is not) then I play at a sloth's pace and would have had plenty of time to see every detail of Merion in my one play.)   Also, I did live right down the road for spell and was pretty infatuated with the place, and managed to get a peak at it more than once.  Don't get me wrong, when it comes to understanding Merion, I am a complete novice, which is one reason I have avoided getting to too much discussion about the modern details of the course.  It is also why I have not yet posted a Part II to my Essay.   All that being said, and keeping in mind my minimal experience on both  NGLA and Merion . . . 

I played Merion a few days after playing NGLA (also with hickories) and I saw CBM all over Merion.   Likewise, in most of the depictions of the course as it was then, there was plenty of CBM there.   

Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about aesthetics.  While there was more aesthetic connection then, they are obviously quite different now.  And I am certainly not talking about today's maintenance or tree growth or rough height or fairway lines.  I suspect that one who knew the course better could make a strong argument that the current maintenance and set-up masks Merion's architectural greatness rather than enhancing it.   What I am talking about are the fundamental principles of great strategic golf holes, as cbm understood them.   They were everywhere, along with many of his more idiosyncratic features.  The large mound backing the attempted Alps, for example; CBM viewed such mounds as a fundamental component of how an Alps hole should play. 

In short, those who present early Merion East as an extension of the dark ages are flat out wrong.   So are those who view Merion as a departure from the Macdonald school (building extremely strategic golf courses by applying the principles that underpin the great golf holes.)  They have missed or forgotten something extremely fundamental about the course.   Far from a departure from NGLA, Merion was a direct application of CBM's approach.   At its core, Merion is not primarily about shot testing or specifying certain requirements to achieve success.   It is a strategic masterpiece full of subtle options and subtle consequences not only for proper or improper execution, but also for good or poor decision-making.  At least in my uninformed opinion that is what it is.

Look, this would obviously be a more interesting conversation and is really at the core of all of my work about Merion thus far, but we are not ready for this conversation yet.  We first need to come to an accurate understanding of how the course came about and what those who were there were trying to accomplish.    There has been such resistance to honestly and critically examining even these basic questions, that it makes no sense to move on.    Everyone there (or at least those representing those who are there) have their minds made up about the place and they aren't going to listen to the facts.  It has been this way since the beginning.   

But make no mistake, this is just the beginning from my perspective.  All I have been doing is trying to lay the groundwork for the real conversation.    Yet we are still miles away.  Almost three years have passed since I first posted a section of an article describing Merion's 10th in similar terms to how cbm described NGLA's  Alps hole.   I was called "stupid" and a liar in that thread as well, and worse.    Three years later, and these guys are still carrying on the exact same conversation, and hurling the exact same insults.  No progress has been made (when progress is made TEPaul and Wayne quickly backtrack and retrench, claiming he knew it all along anyways.)   We are still having the same discussion.   


________________

JWL,

Bunker placement was often referred to as creating mental hazards or creating the problems or creating the mental problems. 

My understanding is that Wilson waited to add some of the man-made features like fairway bunkers and some greenside bunkers until after the course opened..   This too is consistent with CBM's approach.  CMB wrote that one should wait observe play in order to best understand where to place fairway bunkers. 

Dan, 

While a few of the low lying greens had to be rebuilt/replaced because of drainage issues, I believe that all the greens were built in 1911. So I doubt that these were the mental hazards to which he refers. 

[DMoriarty]

A MENTAL VISUALIZATION EXERCISE:

Dan,  You belong to a Hanse course don't you?  And I assume you have played NGLA?   If so, perhaps you could humor me with a hypotehtical visualization exercise?  (Others not familiar with Hanse can substitute who you want, but Hanse is perfect because to me his style is Philadelpiaey.) 

Imagine that Gil Hanse had a rough plan done by cbm on a challenging but interesting piece of land somewhere around Philadelphia.   The plan isn't necessarily a blueprint of a course or even a drawing, but it does indicate the general locations and hole concepts identifying the underlying fundamental principles of the golf holes.    Now imagine that Hanse decides to build this course and that, even though the plan may not fit perfectly and Gil is left to come up with many of the details himself, he does the best he can to stay true to the underlying principles of the golf holes.    hile Gil pays close attention to the principles, he does not make any attempt to emulate CBM's or Raynor's aesthetic stylings, new or old.  He also sticks to his general approach of not moving dirt when it is not necessary-- The general plan is based on the landforms, so Gil simply uses what is there. 

What would this course look like when it was finished?   Would it be readily identifiable as a CBM course?   Would it even be a CBM course in your minds?

I submit that the course would not be easily identifiable as CBM course.   It would look like a Gil Hanse course, and given that Gil's original work is firmly based in thorough understanding of the great holes, it would likely play like a Hanse course as well.  I also submit that it might come out looking a bit like early Merion, minus some of the the more blatant unnatural touches that existed at early Merion. 

(I was going to say that I can't quite picture Gill building the back of the Alps hole like that, but come to think of it I have seen Gil and Jim build a mound close to that size in front of a green in order to create a blind shot and a sunken, semi punchbowl green behind.   In fact the green was a bit of the opposite of Merion 10-- the big mound was in front and small mounds were behind.  The looks great even though it was built on what was a flat,  boring greensite.   So in the hypo Gil could do the mound, but would probably have tried to make it fit better with the surrounds.)

_____________

For those of you who don't like hypothetical questions, how about Old Macdonald?   We all know of CBM's influence there, but I doubt we will see much of Raynor's industrial aesthetic there.  If we didn't know better, would we automatically think CBM, or just another great course at Bandon (assuming it is great?)    I recently played C&C's Kapalua Plantation.  While I'd played and enjoyed the choices presented on the 15th multiple times gbefore, I did not noticed that No. 15 was basically a bottle hole until Tommy N mentioned it.   

[DMoriarty]

"David Moriarty, it will do you no good at all on these threads to continue to deflect the focus away from your tortured logic and distorted assumptions and conclusions on this entire issue of Merion, Wilson and Macdonald, by trying to constantly shift the focus onto me or blame me for the reaction to the things you have written and said about Merion. What you need to do is learn how to take responsibility yourself for the things you have said and written on here on that subject.

We are going to go back through all this, point by timeline point, but this time with some others on here who are now apparently willing to engage and both understand and appreciate not just what has happened here but also why.

I will be civil throughout and when all is said and done I feel this website will be treated to a very fine example of how not to broach, and research and write about an important architectural subject such as Merion and its architect and architectural history.

Tom,   I am tired of your rudeness, name-calling, false accusations, and your frequent temper tantrums.  I am also tired of the games you guys are still playing with the source material.   I am also tired of your short-lived attempts at feigned civility.  In short, I have no interest in going through any of this with you.   It is bad for the site, counter-productive, and in my opinion you have have far too little to offer and way too much to say.   

Over a year ago, you promised that you and Wayne would write a In My Opinion piece to counter my essay and set the record straight.   You also promised something at the USGA.  I'd be glad to review it address it if you do it, but you haven't.   Why haven't you done this?   Writer's block?   

Put it in writing, back it up, and will be glad to read it and critique it.   Until then, I really do not care to have anything to do with you, at least unless and until you can grow up. 

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Sorry to say, but I've never even seen NGLA in person.  However, I have played Gil's other private club here, Applebrook.  To me, you could tell that they were both Gil's, even though they're on quite different topography.  And they're quite different golf courses.

(And, of course, Gil is influenced by Merion because Mr. Bill Kittleman, Design Partner, Hanse Golf Course Design, was the head golf professional at Merion Golf Club for 27 years.  Our par-3 5th hole, with its pocket quarry, is a mini-homage to Meron #16)

[Dan Herrmann]

duplicate removed

[DMoriarty]

David,
Sorry to say, but I've never even seen NGLA in person. 

Dan,

Never even seen NGLA?  Then how can you conclude that "there is not really much (if any) CBM" at Merion??

However, I have played Gil's other private club here, Applebrook.  To me, you could tell that they were both Gil's, even though they're on quite different topography.  And they're quite different golf courses.

(And, of course, Gil is influenced by Merion because Mr. Bill Kittleman, Design Partner, Hanse Golf Course Design, was the head golf professional at Merion Golf Club for 27 years.  Our par-3 5th hole, with its pocket quarry, is a mini-homage to Meron #16)

Merion's influence on Gil is why I picked him.  But on our hypothetical course, would you identify the hole concepts and hole placement as CBM's work?   

See NGLA, look past the aesthetics, and you might agree that there is a whole lot of CBM at Merion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

It would make sense if the green was below the natural grade in that area but it's not hard to tell it wasn't. If you want to see the most obvious place they made the cut to create the fill for that berm behind that green just check out that massive "thing" (cut) on the left of the tenth fairway! It looks to me like the size of it just about balances the fill for that big berm.

TEPaul,

The photo Mike Cirba posted seems to indicate rather clearly that the spectators reclining at the bunker complex area forward of the green are looking down on the golfers on the putting surface

If the green is "at grade"  then the fronting bunker complex would have to be "above grade" thus obscuring the putting surface from golfers in the fairway.

Does that make sense to you ?

[JESII]

For what it is worth, those pictures make me think virtually none of the green surface would have been visible from the area of a drive...the few feet of rise at the front edge of the green, coupled with the knowledge that the fairway is not raised make the case.

[Dan Herrmann]

David,
Nope, I wouldn't say the hypothetical course was in any way the work of CBM.   I apologize if I'm missing your point, but wouldn't that be like claiming Tom Doak's work is Pete Dye's because Tom used to work for Pete.

[mike_malone]

 

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't recall right now....were there any accounts anywhere that described the approach as blind?

I'd still love to hear someone explain why the bottom of the back bunker is visible in that picture from the hillside just above the valley of the 9th green, which is quite a bit lower than the 10th green. 

[TEPaul]

"If the green is "at grade"  then the fronting bunker complex would have to be "above grade" thus obscuring the putting surface from golfers in the fairway.

Does that make sense to you ?"



Patrick:

Complete sense. That's what we've been saying for some years now. They didn't core down into natural grade where that old green used to sit----you can see that in all the old photos. Doing something like that in that area would've made just about no sense at all for reasons I know at least you can understand-----ie what did they think that would or could do other than basically make a sort of bathtub with basically flat grade all around it?! Would even "That bunch of guys" as Moriarty disrespectfully refers to Wilson and his committee as well as insinuating they were such novices they were incapable of routing and designing a course, make a dumb drainage mistake like that?

I don't think so but they certainly did build up some above natural grade in that area with the huge berm in the rear and some mounding around bunkers etc in the front of the green up off natural grade.

Ardmore Ave, by the way, is now and obviously was back then somewhat sunken below the ground on either side of the course and obvioiusly that too is for drainage reasons. That's why you see those few steps up from the road to where that old green once was.

[TEPaul]

Dan Hermann:

I would caution you to watch your step in getting involved in a discussion with David Moriarty off those last two posts he made. Even I'm sort of concerned about him now. Is he in some other universe on GCA than the rest of us? Those two posts make just about no sense at all. Maybe he's thinking of something other than Merion.

And he even mentioned he's thinking of doing a PART II on Merion?? My Lord, God help us all. If that's true and Ran Morrissett puts it on here I really will be shocked unless it's titled "Cleaning Up All the Totally Illogical Shit I Spewed in Part 1 of The Missing Faces of Merion" by David Moriarty.

If that is his intention I can guarantee there are some of us here in Philadelphia who would be delighted to work with him on it this time and help him with it in any possible way we can. I wish he'd thought of that and asked us the first time around. When it comes to Merion, we are always here to help anyone understand it and its history better---I guarantee it.

[DMoriarty]

David,
Nope, I wouldn't say the hypothetical course was in any way the work of CBM.   I apologize if I'm missing your point, but wouldn't that be like claiming Tom Doak's work is Pete Dye's because Tom used to work for Pete.

I wasn't really asking for design attribution, but rather whether we'd recognize CBM's golf holes if they were built with a different aesthetic sensibility by someone other than the usual suspects.   Would you see any CBM in Gil's course, or just Gil?

Turning to your answer, which I find fascinating.   In my hypothetical, Gil built a course following CBM's rough plan as to the hole concepts and placement, yet you don't think it is any way a CBM course?  What about the hole concepts and placement? 

Your example is Tom Doak's experience with Pete Dye.  My understanding is that Tom Doak worked for Pete Dye at PGA West Stadium, and may have been the lead associate largely responsible for creating the golf holes.  I don't know for sure that he was, but if he was then I am sure that Tom had plenty of creative input and was intergral part of the creative process, but I don't know anyone who would view that course as anything but a Pete Dye course, or the holes as anything but Pete Dye holes.  This is especially true if we are focusing solely on the hole concepts or even the course concept!

I don't get this at all.  Could you explain?

_____________________

Mike Cirba,

The photo is from well above the 9th, and is not the proper angle to judge much of anything.  Plus it looks to me in that photo like there was mounding front and left!

As for your first question, I opened the infamous Another Piece of the Puzzle Thread with the following post, describing how the golfer could not be sure of his result until he had scaled the last rampart, or some such thing.   I believe other such examples might have been offered as well.   

The other night I was trying to get caught up on a big stack of NY Times issues and came across a US Am preview, dated August 27, 1916, which contained an interesting description of the Merion East's 10th hole.  Forgive me if others have already seen this article or brought it this site's attention, but I do not remember having seen it . . .



While I am fuzzy on the details, I do recall a discussion about the characteristics and origins of this hole, and thought this article might supply a bit more information from a contemporary source.  For example, the unattributed article describes the green as follows:

The green is . . . completely surrounded by by breastwords and trenches, so that the result of the shot is always in doubt until the golfer scales the last rampart and glares or smiles at what his hands have done.

I found this particularly interesting for at least two reasons . . . first, the unattributed author seems to be of the opinion that the approach shot was blind.   Second, his description (result in doubt . . . scaling the rampart) reminds me of MacDonald's description(s) of the virtues of the approach on an Alps hole. 

This article certainly isn't dispositive, but it is another piece in the puzzle . . .

_______________________


This 2 1/2 year old thread is a fascinating study in how some views have changed and how little distance we have come on these issues.  Like on the current thread, I was called a liar and stupid (and much worse)  on that one as well.  While everything I said was questioned challenged and criticized, I believe my three major crimes were.
1.  Suggesting that the 10th was meant to be an Alps hole.  (It was.)
2.  Suggesting the new 10th was much shorter than was commonly believed. (It was.)
3.  Even considering the possibility that CBM had an influence on what happened at NGLA. (He did.)

So 50 pages of bickering, name-calling, personal attacks and rudeness, all because I dared ask questions about TomPaul and Wayne's version of what happened Merion's beginnings.    As explained below, TEPaul and Wayne deleted a huge number of their offensive posts from this thread.   Here is a link:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,26752.msg502244.html#msg502244

FAIR WARNING TO THOSE WHO READ THE THREAD:   When the website used to allow for it, TEPaul and Wayne would try to manipulate the record on here by deleting their past offensive, mistaken, and rude posts, in order to allow them to pretend they never said such things.  This was especially when others called attention to their boorish behavior, and this is exactly what happened after they harrassed Tom MacWood right off these boards.     In this thread alone TEPaul and Wayne deleted hundreds of such posts-- over 500 if memory serves-- so you have to read between the lines for the thread to make sense.  If there is something missing, just fill in your own insult or false statement.   The amazing thing is that they kept the posts weren't offensive, misleading, or wrong, so they had posted hundreds of posts in one thread they even they knew were over the line!

That alone  should provide insight into how these things have gone for those of us willing to challenge these guys about their sacred Merion!

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Could you point me to any sources back then who said the approach was blind?

Also, if you would, in your response to Dan you mentioned seeing Macdonald's influence all over the place at Merion.

As today's course only has about 9 holes that resemble what was there when the course opened, perhaps you can cite some specific examples and we should probably throw out no.3 as well as we've beaten that psuedo-redan to death prior.

How about discussing the strong Mac influence you see on today's 4, 6. 7, 16, and 18, or feel free to discuss original holes long gone such as the original 11, 12, 13, or 2, 1, 8, 9, or even 17 as it was when first opened?

Thanks

[Mike_Cirba]

David,

Our posts crossed...pls disregard my first question and thanks for that article.